Archives

Old Archives 2002-2004

Earlier this week, I posted a blog about a federal court decision to proceed in a lawsuit against Pastor Scott Lively of Massachusetts. The lawsuit, brought by a group of Ugandan homosexuals, claimed that Pastor Lively’s advocacy in Uganda of a biblical standard of human sexuality constituted a “crime against humanity.” In one of the comments in response to my blog, “John” observed the following:

Michael Avramovich: “Thus, under the judge’s theory of liability, if you oppose homosexual marriage, or have worked or contributed in opposition to such a “marriage,” or disfavor any special rights for homosexuals in the workplace, etc.” Scott Lively is not simply opposing same sex marriage. He is the most extreme of extremists and a sick and dangerous man. Among his fever dreams are that gays helped mastermind the Holocaust and were responsible for the Rwandan genocide. He has been active in stirring up hatred in a situation already charged with violence. Judge Ponsor initially had doubts about allowing the case to go forward. As I understand it, all Ponsor has done is allowed the case to go to discovery. He states that, according to the complaint, “the Defendants actions have fallen well outside the protections of the First Amendment.” Ponsor acknowledged that the “protection of ‘thought we hate’ is a centerpiece of our democracy,” but added that the complaint “sets out plausible claims to hold Defendant liable for his role in systematic persecution, rather than merely for opinions that Plaintiff finds abhorrent.” I suspect that, because of ATCA, the plaintiffs will probably not prevail. However, if Lively indeed encouraged “systematic persecution,” it is important that this comes out in discovery. This will allow us all to come to educated conclusions, regardless of the outcome of the case (which may be limited on technical grounds.)

I do not know Pastor Lively and have actually never heard of him until this lawsuit was well underway, so I cannot opine as to whether he is the “most extreme of extremists and a sick and dangerous man,” as “John” contends. Moreover, “John” seems to have some inside knowledge about the Honorable Judge Ponsor, as “John” suggested that the judge had some initial doubts about allowing this case to go forward.

I have had the privilege to live and travel throughout the world, and those who have had the privilege to know Africans, and African Christians in particular, know that they are traditional and conservative, and oppose homosexual (and other non-matrimonial) sexual practices. (I have heard one Sunday morning a Nigerian pastor, for instance, warn strongly that some of the women in his congregation were “whores” for taking up with both unmarried and married men. It was not the typical message one hears on Sunday morning in the American heartland.) In the lawsuit by the Ugandan homosexuals, they attributed Pastor Lively’s sermons in Uganda to be the primary impetus for Ugandan government restrictions on homosexual practices. If true, this is an interesting attestation of Pastor Lively’s strong persuasive abilities, and may explain why the Soros-funded Center for Constitutional Rights targeted Pastor Lively. But I remind my American readers that criminalization of sodomy statutes in the United States were not struck down by the Supreme Court until 2003, so perhaps for at least one American federal judge, the Ugandan government is not “evolving” as quickly as he thinks it should.

In any event, I wanted to take the time to respond to “John’s” thoughtful comment, but my original blog warned that Judge Ponsor’s decision could have a chilling effect on Christian pastors, missionaries, and devout believers to preach from the Bible. The fact that this case is going forward in federal court federalizes and criminalizes viewpoint discrimination against Christians. From comments made on pro-homosexual and Leftist blogs about this case, one reads vehement anti-Christian comments. A small, unedited sample includes the following:

Mr. Pink: I thought I would have to wait decades to see this day. Literally, decades. There is justice in the world after all !!!!

Marcus Adams: Christianity is a Crime Against Humanity.

Jon Bond: Crimes against humanity, aid in the persecution and murder of fellow men the world over, unprovoked, unwarranted and out-of-the-way fanaticism to murder and kill GLBT peeps the world over; all perpetrated, accepted, sanctioned, blessed and justified in the NAME OF GOD?

David L. Martin: Terrific! We need to see more individuals and institutions that have advocated the persecution of gays sued. The catholic church which has taught anti gay hate from pulpits and in schools for centuries for comes resulting in much violence and discrimination against gays.

We can clearly see a trend by homosexuals and their allies who seek to silence and intimidate anyone who rejects affirmation of their “lifestyle.” Moreover, I can expect that the anti-Christian rabble will increasingly use the legal and criminal justice system to extract high costs for proclaiming biblical truths. So, you have been forewarned for such things have happened before. (We must never forget what was done to my dear brother in Christ, Joseph Scheidler, by the forces of evil. In case you have forgotten, please read here.)

As the legal issues in this case are clear, in normal times, I think that Judge Ponsor’s decision will be overturned sooner rather than later for his complete disregard of the Supreme Court’s recent decision restricting the use of the Alien Torts Claim Act in this type of case. But, sadly, these are not normal times, and I can easily imagine appellate judges refusing to follow the law for fear from Leftists and their allies, and for Messrs. Obama and Holder intervening in this case to make sure that Pastor Lively’s views will be forever suppressed, and that he will be destroyed financially. If you want to read the Honorable Judge Ponsor’s Opinion in this case, you can read it here. I hope that this clarifies things more fully for you, my friend “John.”

–MICHAEL AVRAMOVICH

10 Responses to: ‘A Response to “John” Regarding Pastor Lively’

His distribution of attention is something I can take or leave. Otherwise, he seems like an ordinary evangelical, just not given much to happy talk (which I suppose is atypical these days). He appears to have had a long running tit-for-tat with a professor at Grove City College named Warren Throckmorton.

The thesis of his book The Pink Swastika is that the apex and core of the Nazi Party was shot through with a particular subtype of homosexual and that the practice of sodomy was integral to their worldview (and accounted for their abuse of other subtypes of homosexual). John rather butchered his description of it.

You raise an interesting point which had not occurred to me, that “John” is perhaps one degree of separation from the judge in this case, as in an attorney who knows the judge’s clerk.

The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has advanced a thesis that much of the political and cultural left is incapable of offering aught but a caricature of their opponents’ viewpoints. He has an explanation of this which located its origins in the range of considerations which animate those viewpoints – the typical leftist drawing from a smaller set of considerations and uncomprehending of those drawing from a larger set. Lively has said that the only occasions where his words have been accurately rendered by reporters was during live radio broadcasts when they could not be edited. Benedict Groeschel has also said that reporters he has spoken to over the years commonly display sheer ineptitude. Haidt’s thesis is a possible explanation for that.

But, sadly, these are not normal times, and I can easily imagine appellate judges refusing to follow the law for fear from Leftists and their allies,

They’re not afraid. The judiciary gets remarkably little flak for serial misbehaviors. Many years ago Robert Bork offered a brief description of John Paul Stevens the burden of which was that the man’s nexus of associations was quite uniform and offered little opportunity for the judge to be exposed to anything not taken for granted in those social circles (implicit in this was that the judge read and digested not a friggin’ thing which challenged that worldview either). Smug parochialism is a better explanation of judicial behavior.

“most extreme of extremists and a sick and dangerous man,” as “John” contends.

It would not matter. Giving a presentation in Uganda in 2009 is not a civil tort.

That aside, do you think a common-and-garden evangelical pastor in a metropolis of middling size (Springfield, Massachusetts) is likely to be all that dangerous? Christianity Today has three passing references to him in an electronic archive which dates back to 1994. There are nearly 500 references to Charles Colson. Given that “John” is concerned with the good name of Ernst Roehm, just what is it that qualifies as “sick”? Do you think maybe these are rhetorical flourishes functioning to justify something?

Lively is a wackaloon. He’s not just a raving bigot about homosexuality, but he is trying to sell the idea that Obana is gay and gays started the Holocaust. And so forth. I don’t know what he did in Uganda, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was something off the wall.

Every one of these baseless suits (against Lively, bakers, etc.) needs an aggressive and immediate counter-suit (or suit against an equivalent party) based on the same premise the plaintiffs are using. The gay lobby is artificially carving out legal protection that doesn’t exist, and as their position has no real basis except what ultimately resolves into arbitrary personal opinion the same arguments (at this point anyways) can simply be turned back against them. This needs to be done quickly and aggressively in courts across the country otherwise their bigotry can potentially become entrenched and ever more severely restrict religious freedom. It’s not by accident Plato and Plutarch said democracy devolves into tyranny.

The means of enforcement by the other side are intolerance, hatred, persecution and trying to silence anyone who disagrees. Clearly they have no transcendent morality to anchor their positions and their worldviews are at best inconsistent and ultimately arbitrary, but what we must capitalize on is that most of the time they have no adequate legal ground (unless you are Justice Kennedy!) and simply resort to emotive appeals and intimidation. A strong Christian response that is penetrating and comprehensive is key.

This is a deeply moral issue that only a robustly orthodox Christian worldview can counter, it alone can offer order, coherence, a correct interpretation of human nature, a foundation of loving social interaction, and a true vision of human flourishing. The other side can only hatefully force their ultimately arbitrary, destructive and immoral position on everyone else if we stand on the side. The point being that we need to aggressively pursue court action in addition to everything else needed for revival (most importantly falling on our knees before God and imploring his mercy). Immediate and swift counteraction through the courts needs to be a pillar of the Christian response.

There’s a good write up about the lawsuit against Lively here: http://www.advocate.com/news/world-news/2013/08/15/scott-lively-will-be-tried-fueling-antigay-persecution-uganda . Just google Scott Lively for many examples of his idiocy. His conclusions about Hitler surrounding himself with homosexuals from his youth, etc., are bizarre. In the West, we have a free and educated society protecting us from Lively’s brand of extremism, but he and other extremists are traveling to Russia, Uganda, and other nations where they have not yet been dismissed as fringe crazy people. These countries don’t have the same history of freedom we do, so Lively and those like him are able to stir up a great deal of harm.

Lively made a series of presentations in Uganda in connection with some pending legislation. He then went home. That is not a civil tort. Previous case law has been clear that the statute under which the suit was brought cannot be used for activity undertaken abroad even were it a civil tort. You do not know what you are talking about.

We do need protection from vulgar fools but Lively would not be a priority even in this little combox.

“Previous case law has been clear that the statute under which the suit was brought cannot be used for activity undertaken abroad even were it a civil tort.”
I think others have said as much. That is not the point. The point is to understand the effect these extremists (like Lively) have in countries that are not used to our freedoms.